Restarting HS2a

[Sorcerer]

The simple point is that, in the 2010s even at costs already high by European standards, HS2 had a good economic case based on conventional benefits alone.

I am also lead to question how much of these costs were down to construction and subsequent land acquisition within Central London while SNCF, Deutsche Bahn and Trenitalia opted to connected city centres via conventional rails that connected to the high-speed lines on the outskirts of the cities. Land has never been cheap in London, even back in the Victorian era when railways were first being built.

 

[eldomtom2]

I am also lead to question how much of these costs were down to construction and subsequent land acquisition within Central London while SNCF, Deutsche Bahn and Trenitalia opted to connected city centres via conventional rails that connected to the high-speed lines on the outskirts of the cities. Land has never been cheap in London, even back in the Victorian era when railways were first being built.

I don't think that made much difference. Crossrail was more expensive than similar Western European urban rail projects.

 

[Brubulus]

The simple point is that, in the 2010s even at costs already high by European standards, HS2 had a good economic case based on conventional benefits alone.

The problem of HS2 isn't that its business case has had to be cooked, but why costs have become so abnormally high.

The physical railway should be broadly similar to others in Europe, land, (outside of Central London) will not be that big of a component of the project costs. Wages are slightly higher than France or Spain but this doesn't explain the great chasm in costs. Nimbyism seems like a partial factor but in can't be responsible for the multiples in cost alone. Is it contracting practise or something else that means the route is approaching the cost of an Alpine base tunnel per km?

It is genuinely insane and the government is right to conduct a project reset and have a proper look at what has happened before committing to further construction.

 

[FMerrymon]

The physical railway should be broadly similar to others in Europe, land, (outside of Central London) will not be that big of a component of the project costs. Wages are slightly higher than France or Spain but this doesn't explain the great chasm in costs. Nimbyism seems like a partial factor but in can't be responsible for the multiples in cost alone. Is it contracting practise or something else that means the route is approaching the cost of an Alpine base tunnel per km?

It is genuinely insane and the government is right to conduct a project reset and have a proper look at what has happened before committing to further construction.

Some of the main differences were recorded by the NAO (attached). Also worth having a look at https://assets.publishing.service.g...international-benchmarking-study-document.pdf

Entering City centres, stations, rolling stock makes up nearly half of Hs2 phase 1's spend, but you won't find those items on a French build. If a dedicated high speed line needs to get to the city, then often thats a separate project. Stations are funded by the regions they're in or are served by existing tracks. We didn't do that for hs2 as the primary purpose was capacity and the stations being served were some of the biggest bottlenecks.

In any case, construction is expensive in the UK due to a fragmented supply chain, one that has no long term govt strategy pipeline to rely on. It is even more expensive now as we have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, which also contributes to the cost of far higher cost of materials.

The Green Book was revised based on those findings. Hence my comments on the importance of BOTH meeting strategic policy objectives and having benefits in excess of costs. Again, unless I have missed it, no credible evidence has been provided of transformational impacts from HS2 on the relevant strategic policy objectives.

The BCR for phase 1 has not been adjusted since the adjustment of the green book, but the report you referred to and the reports I reffered to are attempts to show those transformational aspects. It already had been given the go ahead. And we still don't have the released capacity wider economic benefits or accurate user transport benefits included.

 

[Brubulus]

Some of the main differences were recorded by the NAO (attached). Also worth having a look at https://assets.publishing.service.g...international-benchmarking-study-document.pdf

Entering City centres, stations, rolling stock makes up nearly half of Hs2 phase 1's spend, but you won't find those items on a French build. If a dedicated high speed line needs to get to the city, then often thats a separate project. Stations are funded by the regions they're in or are served by existing tracks. We didn't do that for hs2 as the primary purpose was capacity and the stations being served were some of the biggest bottlenecks.

In any case, construction is expensive in the UK due to a fragmented supply chain, one that has no long term govt strategy pipeline to rely on. It is even more expensive now as we have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, which also contributes to the cost of far higher cost of materials.



The BCR for phase 1 has not been adjusted since the adjustment of the green book, but the report you referred to and the reports I reffered to are attempts to show those transformational aspects. It already had been given the go ahead. And we still don't have the released capacity wider economic benefits or accurate user transport benefits included.

Interesting to see, as I had seen previous analyses of cost drivers for HS2, but none as useful as that one. Does suggest that some minor changes could be made to HS2 design while meeting strategic objectives for Phase 2, justifying project reset and also giving hope Phase 2 may have costs broadly similar to the higher end of comparable European High speed projects instead of the Alpine base tunnel level costs of Phase 1, which in a way is expected since it involves buying up a substantial slice of Central London alongside much of the route being in a bored tunnel.

 

[eldomtom2]

Some of the main differences were recorded by the NAO (attached). Also worth having a look at https://assets.publishing.service.g...international-benchmarking-study-document.pdf

Entering City centres, stations, rolling stock makes up nearly half of Hs2 phase 1's spend, but you won't find those items on a French build. If a dedicated high speed line needs to get to the city, then often thats a separate project. Stations are funded by the regions they're in or are served by existing tracks. We didn't do that for hs2 as the primary purpose was capacity and the stations being served were some of the biggest bottlenecks.

In any case, construction is expensive in the UK due to a fragmented supply chain, one that has no long term govt strategy pipeline to rely on. It is even more expensive now as we have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, which also contributes to the cost of far higher cost of materials.



The BCR for phase 1 has not been adjusted since the adjustment of the green book, but the report you referred to and the reports I reffered to are attempts to show those transformational aspects. It already had been given the go ahead. And we still don't have the released capacity wider economic benefits or accurate user transport benefits included.

The problem with that chart is that all those differences (high frequency, more tunnels and bridges, high population density, new city-centre stations) make HS2 more like a Shinkansen - and those come in at less money per km than HS2...

 

[Krokodil]

Digging under Manchester won't come cheap, though presumably there will be far less land acquisition required.

 

[The Ham]

The Green Book was revised based on those findings. Hence my comments on the importance of BOTH meeting strategic policy objectives and having benefits in excess of costs. Again, unless I have missed it, no credible evidence has been provided of transformational impacts from HS2 on the relevant strategic policy objectives.

Capacity, capacity, capacity.

Capacity of the long distance trains - at the time of proposal over double that of the trains in service on those routes, even if the refurbished 390's were lengthened to 12 coaches still 60% uplift (or more) in capacity.

Capacity of the existing local services along the WCML, even if there's a need for long distance services to rejoin North of Birmingham and for there to be services along the WCML to Birmingham, you can still run (for example) more services in the paths which are removed from the existing network.

Capacity at stations like Manchester, as with new platforms, that frees up capacity at existing platforms for other services. Even if you replace the existing services with local services of the same length, 2tph being in a platform for 15 minutes rather than 30 minutes (as you can turn local trains around much faster) means that you've got space to run 4 trains of 6 coaches into that platform which you couldn't do before.

If those trains were 3 coaches long before, then you've lengthened them. However you've also freed up the platform capacity if where they were running to before, this means that the services which were using those platforms with them can also be lengthened by 3 coaches. That's 8tph which could be quiet a bit longer.

Neither of the latter points were considered in the business case for HS2 (as it was always said that would be a matter for future decisions - which I can understand as why say that place a is getting a better service when it maybe better that place b gets a better service as things had changed in the 20 years since the business case was first written), however, with little to no infrastructure costs the business case for those extra services is likely to be fairly good.

As we're now close enough to set future services, it would be interesting to do a full business case for every benefit from building a new pair of lines into central Manchester and all the improvements to services it facilitates.

With it possible for residents of Manchester and places served by those trains to see what it could actually look like in terms of wider rail improvements, not only would the business case be significantly better, there would be significantly more political support for the scheme - even if was just a copy paste of what HS2 was going to do.

As I've of the difficulties with the selling of the dream of HS2 was that all the secondary stuff it facilitated takes a lot to explain.

If you could say, if we build 6 platforms in Manchester we could lengthen every existing train service by an average of 2 coaches, add a further 50% capacity to the Avanti services on top of that and add 4 extra trains an hour, is it worth building that?

I would imagine that the response to that would be better than if your saying you were going to build 6 platforms in Manchester to double the capacity of Avanti services.

The reality is that the proposal in Manchester by HS2 is the same, it's just without being able to detail the improvements to anything other than the long distance services they could only say the second description, when the reality was that it's likely that it could have also delivered the first description (and probably more).

 

[Technologist]

From that NAO report:

"The current technical requirements and specifications for HS2 Phase Two differ in a number of areas from those of international schemes, and in some cases have resulted in larger, more costly assets. The drivers of these differences include the lack of a stable set of optimised requirements and standards from previous projects, and the design being developed for the Hybrid Bill to ensure it gives adequate powers as opposed to being an optimised design for construction."

This is precisely why high speed rail needs to be done incrementally starting with the lowest risk section to build knowledge. It's also notable that the report pulls out the different methods for mitigation, e.g. we have put HS2 in cuttings at enormous expense so nobody will have a view. In continental Europe they use sound barriers and in Japan they design quieter trains, both of which are much cheaper.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The problem of HS2 isn't that its business case has had to be cooked, but why costs have become so abnormally high.

There's been quite a lot of discussion of routes, but I am pretty sure other routes would have brought their own problems
HS2 would still be significantly over time and cost.

have a proper look at what has happened before committing to further construction

There have been many proper looks at why major infrastructure projects typically go way over time and cost.
Some of these reasons can apply anywhere in the world (e.g. optimism bias, political vanity/tinkering), some are more UK-specific (e.g. supply chain capacity, planning laws, political/civil service culture). I'm sure there are some new flavours to HS2, but the ingredients are pretty well understood.

 

[SynthD]

This is precisely why high speed rail needs to be done incrementally starting with the lowest risk section to build knowledge.

What is the lowest risk section? HS1 in Kent seems fairly simple, except for the tunnels at either end, and the rebuild of Ashford station. Did that build knowledge?

 

[Krokodil]

What is the lowest risk section?

Stafford bypass, I imagine

 

[Meerkat]

Do the Europeans have to do so much environmental mitigation? When I was watching a full CGI fly through of the route I was shocked by how vast the land take was, with big swathes of woods, grasslands, wetlands being created, plus all the attenuation ponds.
Presumably France and particularly Spain do a lot less as they are going through tens of miles of nothing, and their size means they have lots more of a habitat - the line is only a fractional loss.

 

[eldomtom2]

In continental Europe they use sound barriers and in Japan they design quieter trains, both of which are much cheaper.

In Japan part of the solution to noise pollution has been for decades to restrict all new Shinkansen lines to a maximum of 260km/h.

 

[WAO]

Google Earth shows the route now quite clearly as a lighter strip, mostly continuous. There's an awful lot of earth moving etc off the line of route. It's a very expensive. gold plated job with a large land take for just a 2-track railway.

It should have been "value engineered" to take out (or question) the inessentials. It could (and should) have been a roaring success.

WAO

 

[NCT]

The deep cuttings and some of the green tunnels are politics induced - they were to appease the Tory seats in the Chilterns.

The fragmented planning system doesn't help. The Hybrid Bill merely amounts to an outline planning permission and councils can still be very difficult over detailed matters. The Hybrid Bill process didn't expedite the process to the extent it was made out to, and a lot of it was still highly politicised.

 

[Technologist]

What is the lowest risk section? HS1 in Kent seems fairly simple, except for the tunnels at either end, and the rebuild of Ashford station. Did that build knowledge?

Doesn't work for multiple reasons:

1: Fragmentary UK construction Industry
2: Gap between HS1 and HS2
3: Different organisations in charge

HS1 wasn't particularly cheap either.

I should point out that in the context of my UK Highspeed Metro plan the easiest route would probably be something like Newcastle to Edinburgh

 

[The Ham]

Do the Europeans have to do so much environmental mitigation? When I was watching a full CGI fly through of the route I was shocked by how vast the land take was, with big swathes of woods, grasslands, wetlands being created, plus all the attenuation ponds.
Presumably France and particularly Spain do a lot less as they are going through tens of miles of nothing, and their size means they have lots more of a habitat - the line is only a fractional loss.

Attenuation ponds get built all over the place and don't need specialist contractors - so fairly low cost to deliver.

However, what they do is reduces the risk of flooding downstream, enhances the ecosystem and reduces the risk of pollution.

There have been cases where by creating them a small amount of water could be discharged locally (say to an existing ditch) rather than having to upgrade miles of pipes to get to where there's capacity for the water.

 

[Technologist]

In Japan part of the solution to noise pollution has been for decades to restrict all new Shinkansen lines to a maximum of 260km/h.

If HS2 could have been delivered for 1/3 the cost I'm pretty sure we'd all be ok with 260kph trains. The official reasons to limit to 260kph also includes controlling infrastructure costs.

 

[FMerrymon]

If HS2 could have been delivered for 1/3 the cost I'm pretty sure we'd all be ok with 260kph trains. The official reasons to limit to 260kph also includes controlling infrastructure costs.

It would not be 1/3rd of the cost, since half the cost of phase 1 is getting into the cities, their stations, rolling stock, delta junction almost all of which are items that, if speed is involved, are lower than 260kph.

 

[eldomtom2]

If HS2 could have been delivered for 1/3 the cost I'm pretty sure we'd all be ok with 260kph trains. The official reasons to limit to 260kph also includes controlling infrastructure costs.

Considering that Japan is one of the most expensive countries to build high-speed rail in, with recent projects costing over half as much per kilometre than HS2, I'm not sure a 260kph HS2 would be one-third the cost...

 

[The Ham]

It would not be 1/3rd of the cost, since half the cost of phase 1 is getting into the cities, their stations, rolling stock, delta junction almost all of which are items that, if speed is involved, are lower than 260kph.

Indeed, I don't recall who, but someone in here said it may have saved 10% in total.

The other thing with slower trains is that you need more of them to run the same service, which means you also need more staff.

As such what you save in build costs you may use up a fair chunk of in running costs.

Yes an extra guard may only be £100,000 per year (if you count all the costs of employing them, so not just what they are paid) but over a 60 year period that's £11 million (allowing an increase in that cost of 2% per year). Double that for a driver.

After a certain number extra you then need to employ extra for sick and holiday cover.

An extra 15 coaches (at £200,000 per year each on lease) is £330 million.

Just on London Manchester services if they took 90 minutes rather than 68 minutes you'd likely need an extra 4 sets and 5 lots of crew then that's £1.5bn extra. Scotland and Liverpool services would likely add the same again. Whilst the savings for each Birmingham service would be less, there would be savings for that too.

Even if you saved £10bn in build costs you may need getting for half of that for future running costs.

 

[takno]

If HS2 could have been delivered for 1/3 the cost I'm pretty sure we'd all be ok with 260kph trains. The official reasons to limit to 260kph also includes controlling infrastructure costs.

260kph would have rendered the whole eastern leg pointless and not provided competitive trains to Edinburgh. That significantly lowers the value proposition and eliminates any benefit on the East Coast to the point where you'd have to build another one up the east anyway. I'd rather see a 260km railway not built than have the UK even more firmly cemented in the past.

 

[Meerkat]

Attenuation ponds get built all over the place and don't need specialist contractors - so fairly low cost to deliver.

However, what they do is reduces the risk of flooding downstream, enhances the ecosystem and reduces the risk of pollution.

There have been cases where by creating them a small amount of water could be discharged locally (say to an existing ditch) rather than having to upgrade miles of pipes to get to where there's capacity for the water.

Not saying they aren’t very sensible, but there are a lot of them and it all adds to the land take and building cost (and adds to the environmental assessments etc)

 

[Brubulus]

The deep cuttings and some of the green tunnels are politics induced - they were to appease the Tory seats in the Chilterns.

The fragmented planning system doesn't help. The Hybrid Bill merely amounts to an outline planning permission and councils can still be very difficult over detailed matters. The Hybrid Bill process didn't expedite the process to the extent it was made out to, and a lot of it was still highly politicised.

The current government could use HS2 as a clear example of their determination to build and face down Nimbys - one of the few political confrontations that could win them votes, but they're likely too interested in funding more pensioner transfers/reducing future spending so debt is falling in 5 years time, despite the fact it will inevitably get revised.

Indeed, I don't recall who, but someone in here said it may have saved 10% in total.

The other thing with slower trains is that you need more of them to run the same service, which means you also need more staff.

As such what you save in build costs you may use up a fair chunk of in running costs.

Yes an extra guard may only be £100,000 per year (if you count all the costs of employing them, so not just what they are paid) but over a 60 year period that's £11 million (allowing an increase in that cost of 2% per year). Double that for a driver.

After a certain number extra you then need to employ extra for sick and holiday cover.

An extra 15 coaches (at £200,000 per year each on lease) is £330 million.

Just on London Manchester services if they took 90 minutes rather than 68 minutes you'd likely need an extra 4 sets and 5 lots of crew then that's £1.5bn extra. Scotland and Liverpool services would likely add the same again. Whilst the savings for each Birmingham service would be less, there would be savings for that too.

Even if you saved £10bn in build costs you may need getting for half of that for future running costs.

Also remember increase in demand and economic benefit of faster journeys - all adds up to justify faster routes, especially when combined with use of level ground/viaducts instead of cuttings, tunnels or "green tunnels" which I've heard are even more expensive than regular tunnels. Noise isn't really an issue since even if £1 million per mile had to be given in noise compensation, that's a rounding error compared to cost of cuttings, tunnels etc.

Not saying they aren’t very sensible, but there are a lot of them and it all adds to the land take and building cost (and adds to the environmental assessments etc)

A sensible drainage system should be effectively a commodity item for the construction industry given the needs of housing estates etc - a lot of the cost is likely from HS2 limited gold plating the designs then attempting to reinvent the wheel.

 

[HSTEd]

In Japan part of the solution to noise pollution has been for decades to restrict all new Shinkansen lines to a maximum of 260km/h.

Of course, the few surface sections of the maglev Chuo Shinkasen are largely being built inside concrete hoods to eliminate noise pollution

 

[InTheEastMids]

Not saying they aren’t very sensible, but there are a lot of them and it all adds to the land take and building cost (and adds to the environmental assessments etc)

A sensible drainage system should be effectively a commodity item for the construction industry given the needs of housing estates etc

Is there any independent, expert evidence to support the assertion that HS2 has gold-plated its approach to drainage beyond what was required?
This is particularly in the context of a brand new infrastructure network designed to last >100 years and having to deal with a range of possible futures around drought, summer/winter storms and prolonged wet winter weather.

It's an issue across transport, energy and water infrastructure, and there are numerous recent examples where infrastructure that has failed to cope in the last few years.

And of course, if HS2 under-build it and the line gets flooded, many people will be very quick to castigate them for incompetence...

 

[FMerrymon]

Is there any independent, expert evidence to support the assertion that HS2 has gold-plated its approach to drainage beyond what was required?
This is particularly in the context of a brand new infrastructure network designed to last >100 years and having to deal with a range of possible futures around drought, summer/winter storms and prolonged wet winter weather.

It's an issue across transport, energy and water infrastructure, and there are numerous recent examples where infrastructure that has failed to cope in the last few years.

And of course, if HS2 under-build it and the line gets flooded, many people will be very quick to castigate them for incompetence...

I'm not sure to what extent, but some decisions are taken by the environment agency. There have been some legal issues for some of the route https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/judge-dismisses-injunction-case-against-hs2-earthworks-28-06-2024/. They do have powers to stop work if they aren't happy.

 

[Trainbike46]

But when those benefits are added up, they are much lower relative to costs than could be obtained by spending the money on other things.

You make lots of statements like this, but never appear to show any data to back it up. If such data exists, it would be helpful if you could show it.